Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Sullivan defends `decent, pragmatic' Obama

From that first stimulus vote on, [Barack] Obama faced a unanimous and relentless nullification Congress. If he favored something, they opposed it. Despite Obama’s exemplary family life, public grace and composure, and willingness to compromise, they decided to cast him as a tyrant, a radical, a traitor and an incompetent. Their demonization of a decent, pragmatic man simply disgusts me to the core. And, sorry, if you do not smell any whiff of racism in all of this, you’re a better person than I am.

Posted at 09:52:57 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I try to be in the camp that says that you can be anti-Obama and not motivated by race, but it's very difficult. Yesterday, a high school friend of mine, who was a Republican then and is one now, posted a Facebook rant against Obama that, out of nowhere, referred to him as "The Great Biracial Father."

Not the worst racial insult ever, of course, but it had almost nothing to do with what the original poster had written about. I have long thought this particular friend of mine was simply a consistent Republican, not motivated by race in his anti-Obama stance, but it's never far from the surface, is it?

--Wasn't that first Medicare Part D vote (paid for with Free Government Socialist Entitlements for the Elitist 1%) that had a very large Republican majority?

Didnt "that president" use an Executive Order to waive one of the processes in the implementation of that law? Why wasnt he impeached for this action?

Its obvious except for the <.00000000000000000000001% of Americans who still watch Fox News or still have an AM radio and listen to Rush that its racism.

Most Normal Patriotic Americans, who love God and their Country, understand that you cant help yourselves. But Jesus is watching you. And HE is keeping track, and I'd watch out if I were you. Because HE is not happy. HE is the King of Kings. HE is God's Son. HE commands all.

Oh gosh, more of this fiction of Sullivan as a conservative whose liberal positions have special weight as he "sees the light."

More of this pretending that Obama is being singled out for special villification--because he's black of course. It's been six years. It's OK to admit he is mortal. Somebody tell me one thing about this sentence that could not have been said of George Bush:

"Despite Obama’s exemplary family life, public grace and composure, and willingness to compromise, they decided to cast him as a tyrant, a radical, a traitor and an incompetent."

We can cancel out "willingness to compromise" on both sides of the equation, because each side perpetually blames the other on this score.

"And, sorry, if you do not smell any whiff of racism in all of this, you’re a better person than I am."

Example #1 of Obama compromise - the current iteration of Obamacare (which is a market/private insurance-based means to deliver health care). The "leftist" position (and the one that is much more efficient - while saving the profit margin that is currently eaten by private insurers) - is nationalized/single-payer health care - like those offered (at far lower cost) by most other western democracies. (Think Hillarycare a la 1993.)

There are those on the left who believe that Obama betrayed them (and the country) by taking single payer off the table at the beginning, and, in a HUGE attempt to compromise - proffered Republican-designed, market-based Romneycare from the beginning instead. Romenycare - that had been lauded by conservative think tanks as a market-based, personal responsibility-driven means to lower health care costs and insuring everybody. In his attempt to meet Republicans half-way, Obama is demonized and slapped with labels such as a leftist, socialist, facist, white-hating, czarist(?), Kenyan-born, Islamofacist tyrant who hates America and is doing everything he can to destroy the American way of life.

As Sullivan points out if Obama proposes something (even if it was formerly a "good idea"), current Republicans are rabidly against it, and (2) those who assert that the rabid anti-Obama enmity is entirely politically-based is living in fantasyland.

I'm a life long Democrat, but I've had it with Obama.
EZ got mad at me in 2008 when I called him an empty suit. Guess what? That's what he's turned out to be!
He's just a college professor that is the finest example of the Peter Principle that's ever come along.
He has zero understanding of public relations. Yes, Bush & Reagan took far more vacations, but Obama just can't figure out that he needs to stop playing golf, now & for the rest of his term.
The right wing PR machine fully understands what to do to destroy him & is doing it & this guy falls into their bear traps every single day.
The Republicans in Congress have his number & they prevent anything from being done because the Democrats in Congress & especially the Senate are useless wimps, afraid of their own shadows.

I really think he's hoping to get impeached, believing that will redeem him like it did Clinton.
Ain't gonna happen!

Obama turned out to be our generation's version of Jimmy Carter. FDR would have known how to fight the good fight with the GOP and get things done. Obama just was not ready for the big leagues and we ought not to make the same mistake again.

The right has an over active imagination about Obama, as does Garry. In working up to Obamacare he compromised time and time again, for example giving up the public option, for one. Sullivan has it exactly right, that the Republicans were a nullification party, and the posters who will not admit to that are either lying to themselves or are willfully blind.

Obama competency is right in front of them, but the right (and Garry) refuse to see it. He is an extraordinarily competent person, and will be considered one fo the greats.

FDR didn't have to deal with a republican minority that filibustered his every move. FDR didn't have a republican party that would propose a bill, then trash it as soon as FDR expressed support for it.

Buster. Obama never proposed single payer. You can hardly call it a compromise that he didn't demand something that he never proposed. By that logic, one could come up with all kinds of theoretical compromises the Republicans have made. Sorry, but starting out with a realistic position that the American people might accept does not win you points as the great Compromiser.

And you are putting me to sleep with "Kenyan-born, Islamofacist tyrant who hates America and is doing everything he can to destroy the American way of life." It's just not clever the millionth time.

Has it not occurred to you that if Obama stopped playing golf, now and forever, the right wing PR machine would just find something else to destroy him? You admit that he's just doing things that all other presidents have done, and yet somehow you think he's incompetent because he refuses to let the right-wing media define a list of "forbidden activities" for him in the name of a PR war that he has zero chance of winning anyway?

Many people who voted for Obama are unable to admit that he's a horrible president because that would make them look bad for selecting a horrible president.

They think if they can convince people that his ineptitude is caused by racism then they feel better about themselves because 1) Obama's failure isn't their fault and 2) They're cool people because they aren't racist, even though they fully support programs that discriminate on the basis of race. The worst thing that can happen for many people is for our society to become 100% colorblind.

@Q: I too let out a long sigh when I hear Sullivan once again claim that he is moving to the left, as if he was in the center.

---Quotidian is right about Sullivan. Dienne and Garry and David Graf are right about Obama.

The debate about the relative treatment of Obama and Bush is worn out. The right thinks that Bush was treated worse and can't comprehend that the left thinks Obama got worse treatment. The left thinks the opposite. All this proves is that it's in the eye of the beholder because the two camps don't agree on anything, understand each other, or even speak the same language anymore. It's pointless. You can find plenty of whites who voted against Obama or for Romney because of race and you can find a lot of blacks who voted the opposite way because of race. So what? Race will always be a polarizing factor in everything.

Sullivan hasn't moved left as much as he's moved toward boring. Obama governs as a lefty less often than he governs as someone who is overwhelmed.

"And you are putting me to sleep with "Kenyan-born, Islamofacist tyrant who hates America and is doing everything he can to destroy the American way of life." It's just not clever the millionth time."

@quotidian - Yeah, no kidding. Please tell that to conservatives that STILL drumbeat to this nonsense on a daily basis.

@Garry - I think Obama figured out long ago that he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, so as AReader tried to articulate to you, Obama isn't going to let the right wing PR machine tell him what to do, or not to do. Call me crazy, but that sounds like a good idea to me.

All that said, I do agree with David Graf that I don't think Obama was ready yet for the main stage (and vice versa - 'Merica wasn't ready for him).

OK, so you really want him to get into a neverending game of whack-a-mole in which he does something completely normal for a president, the Fox Parrots get all over him for it, so he says "ok, I won't do that again," at which point the Fox Parrots (a) squawk all about how they were right that he shouldn't have been doing that thing, and then (b) start squawking about some other completely normal thing that is now outrageous?

Obama has become a symbol, a pariah that must be hated, criticized, ridiculed and portrayed a a failed president for everything he's done or hasn't attempted. Included in this hate is everyone who benefits from a Obama initiative, whether passed into law, like Obamacare, or not, immigration reform. This obsessively driven machine to nullify his presidency has more or less shut Congress down; it's all about shouting again and again that his role as president borders on the criminal. All this to appease a minority of haters who show up to vote.

Racism isn't the primary motive, but it sure helps their side that Obama is black, perceived by many to be unfit, unworthy to reside in the White House. The silly nonsense about his birth certificate and affirmative action got him into Harvard has blossomed into this paralysis by the Republican Party in Washington to do anything but rail against the man. What will they do when Obama leaves office and the hate that fuels their party is left without a target? It doesn't matter, because no way can they take back the White House in 2016.

Brian, what are his "failings" And where have you seen examples of people attributing his alleged "failings' to racism?

David P. Graf: You didn't happen to notice that FDR had both sides of Congress to support is program. Your argument is thus ridiculous. And please explain why Obama was not ready for the big leagues. He certainly in his Presidency exhibited that he was more than ready.

Lexi: You have any evidence that many on the left are afraid to admit they voted for Obama. As far as those on the left viewing him as a "horrible" president, I have not met any except Garry. In what way has Obama been "horrible." Give me an example?

One thing that the right have been consistently wrong about on their postings is that they refuse to admit that the Republican Party in dealing with Obama has been the party of nullification. They refuse to see it. Greg J., whose opinions I respect, refuses to see it. Sad.

I love when people try to claim that President Obama is a "horrible" president. Willful ignorance of facts is a lovely thing, isn't it? (Sorry, in a world where the US has had presidents like Jackson, Buchanan, Reagan, Bush, Hoover and Coolidge, President Obama is by no reasonable definition "horrible.")

when I saw this post this morning with six comments, I was going to add my two cents:

"a day of two after he was elected, people on my FB feed were claiming he was doing this and doing that, and connecting those actions to socialism, tyranny and whatnot. My thought at the time was 'last time I read the constitution, a newly elected president couldn't really do squat until the went through that annoying formality called inauguration."

of course by the time I got in front of a keyboard this thread went the usual clash of unshakable certitudes, cherished dogma and fiery agendas so I was gonna sit this one out.

instead I'll add this:

I'm not naive enough to think that all Obama's problems are because people don't like a black president. And there has to be something to be said about the experience level of ANYONE who leapfrogs to President as quickly as he did. Garry's point about Public Relations for instance.

still it does seem like the Republicans spent a disproportionate amount of effort attempting (and sometimes succeeding) in making him look bad and prevent anything in the interest of the common good from getting done.

@Robert: I didn't say people on the left are afraid to admit they voted for him. But I did say they're afraid to admit to themselves that he's been horrible, which is why they make up excuses like "racism" or "Republican obstruction" or "the county is ungovernable". As for proof of his ineptitude, even Democrats in Washington say Obama is horrible at working with congress.

@Wendy: This game is easy.

Bush has become a symbol, a pariah that must be hated, criticized, ridiculed and portrayed a a failed president for everything he's done or hasn't attempted. Included in this hate is everyone who benefits from a Bush initiative, whether passed into law, like Medicare expansion, or not, like social security reform. This obsessively driven machine to nullify his presidency has more or less shut Congress down; it's all about shouting again and again that his role as president borders on the criminal. All this to appease a minority of haters who show up to vote.

Envy of wealth isn't the primary motive, but it sure helps their side that Bush is rich, perceived by many to be unfit, unworthy to reside in the White House. The silly nonsense about his legacy getting him into Harvard and getting him out of military service has blossomed into this paralysis by the Democratic Party in Washington to do anything but rail against the man. What will they do when Bush leaves office and the hate that fuels their party is left without a target? It doesn't matter, because no way can they take back the White House in 2008.

The Dems may have controlled both Houses of Congress but that didn't mean that all Dems were 100% behind FDR's programs and couple that with the united opposition of the GOP plus the conservatives on the Supreme Court. Can you give us one really great example of Obama's competence?

While you're trying to come up with some examples of Obama's competence, let me give some counter examples:

* the failure to push through a single payer healthcare system
* the failure to reform Wall Street and banks "too big to fail"
* the failure to even prosecute the crooks who brought down the economy - Reagan and the elder Bush had no problems putting the S&L execs into prison but not our Obama and Holder
* the failure to get the troops out to vote in 2010 for Congress which led to the gridlock (but surprisingly was very good at getting out the vote for himself in 2012)
* the lack of deterrence toward Putin's plans to resurrect the "Evil Empire"
* the tone deaf approach taken toward the military (i.e., Bergdahl)
* the way he gives ammunition to the GOP to use against the Dems

I could go on but even though Obama was a better choice than his GOP challengers, he was still a failure as a President and we're going to make the same mistake by going with Hilary in 2016.

Finn, I didn't know liberals put Jackson on the A list of bad presidents. Are you saying those other ones are "horrible"? That would seem to be your point, since they are all conservative, and you use them to demonstrate that Obama cannot possibly be horrible. Aren't you making the same kind of subjective declaration that you decry? Just saying it's "willful ignorance of the facts" because it differs from your opinion is not exactly a conclusive argument.

If Obama had the level of autocratic power necessary to enact many of the policies you blame him for "failing" to enact, he would indeed be the tyrant those on your side accuse him of being. But my guess is you don't see the irony in that.

Not saying you in particular think he's a tyrant. I wrote "those on your side," if you notice. I'm just saying it's absolutely ridiculous to blame Obama for "failing" to get single-payer healthcare, for example. That's like saying you "failed" to flap your wings and fly to work this morning. It's impossible given the current constraints of reality. In order to enact such a policy, Obama would have to be an autocrat (or have no opposition), which would make him a tyrant. So the right accuses him of tyranny, or, alternatively, "failure" for not being a tyrant. You're usually a more reasonable commenter than to engage in either half of that equation.

@AReader: Obama never even tried to get single payer passed.
I have a very, very right wing friend, but even he was in favor of immediately dropping the Medicare eligibility age to 55.

David Graf is totally correct in calling Obama a marshmallow.
He doesn't seem to know how to fight back.
I just get the feeling he doesn't want to be seen as the angry black man, which is how so many blacks in politics are seen & some actually act that way.
And yes, there are also plenty of angry white men in politics, the entire Tea Party for a start.

Let's see now. The Dems controlled the Congress and White House for the first two years of his term and couldn't get the single payer system through. We needed someone like LBJ who knew how to shepherd things through Congress. Incompetence and inexperience is a dangerous combination and we would up with the mish mash of Obamacare which doesn't do the job. I still cannot believe that you list me with those who call him a tyrant.

Didn't Andrew Sullivan write this in Time magazine a few years ago? The idea that he's anything but in love with Obama is ridiculous.

Those who like Obama blame nasty Republicans who cut off their noses to spite their faces, rather than work with Obama to get anything done. Perhaps it's a matter of, Republicans don't LIKE what Obama is proposing! Perhaps they think doing nothing is better than doing something bad. I'd point out, as many others have before, that working with people who oppose your ideas is what being president is about, opposition or no. Also -- it's hard to spit on the hand (Obama's just-delivered speech comes to mind) and then extend it in welcome to the opposing people (to get the "fist bump" post in here.

Democrats would say Republicans just don't like Obama because he's black. I'm sure there are some who don't. There are people hwo didn't like Carter because he's from the South. And there are huge majorities of black people who would follow O anywhere BECAUSE he's black.

In short, I see little common ground here. I would like to know, for those who like Obama and think he's doing a fine job (his Gallup poll numbers put that segment of Americans at around 40 percent -- and I just checked -- 39 percent today) -- what, specifically, has worked out well? What do you think he's done better than Hillary would have done back in '08?

@quotidian - You are correct, Obama did NOT propose single payer. Do you really believe that he and his staff did not vet single payer internally and with Republicans before he introduced the ACA? He took the Republican (and probably some internal) opposition into account - and (pre)compromised in the process - BEFORE introducing the Romneycare-based ACA. He was trying to show the Republicans - and the American people - that he was bending over backeards to try to be a compromise President. (He probably had to hold his nose before introducing the overly-complex ACA, knowing that although MCUH easier to administer and less costly, single payer would be exceedingly difficult to pass, and would bring about Republican charges that he was a "communist" and a "socialist". Funny thing - his compromise opening position resulted in the same outcome.

@David P Graf -
The legislative majorities that LBJ had compared to the bare majorities Obama had cannot be compared - particularly when you consider that (1) some of the titular Dems in his majorities represented conservative "Red" states, and (2) the opposition confronting LBJ still were interested in actually governing rather than opposing everything for opposition's sake.

(He thought he did not have the votes - as Blue Dog Dems would've run scared, so he "pre-compromised" by introducing the ACA as a "reasonable" (Republican-designed) alternative - yet he's vilified by the opposition as a socialist/communist - opposition that actually shut down the government over "Federal Romneycare". Many on the Left vilify him for NOT proposing Single payer first as the opening negotiating gambit. But who knows? Had he done so, he may have scared away even more tepid Dems from a later-introduced ACA bill.)

* the failure to reform Wall Street and banks "too big to fail"

I totally AGREE with you on this. The Wall Street crowd should have been held accountable.

* the failure to even prosecute the crooks who brought down the economy - Reagan and the elder Bush had no problems putting the S&L execs into prison but not our Obama and Holder

I totally AGREE with you on this, as well. The Wall Street crowd should have been held accountable. But Obama/Biden were financially beholden to the Wall Street crown themselves.

* the failure to get the troops out to vote in 2010 for Congress which led to the gridlock (but surprisingly was very good at getting out the vote for himself in 2012)

I have no opinion on this. The "Tea Party effect" surprised the Dems, I think.

* the lack of deterrence toward Putin's plans to resurrect the "Evil Empire"

How? Introducing American troops to Ukraine? Potentially committing American lives to rise to the defense of a former SSR? Post Bush/Cheney Iraq/Afghanistan, was there ANY support of the American people for this (other than the committed Neocons)?

* the tone deaf approach taken toward the military (i.e., Bergdahl)

WE have a difference of opinion on this (IMHO).

I also fault him for NOT standing up for long-standing American principles (that were abandoned by the Cheney/Bush Administration), and the failure to hold the perpetrators accountable.

You people are nuts. He passed universal health care in the only form realistically possible, the most important piece of domestic legislation in decades, the crown jewel of domestic Democratic policy that had bedeviled all of his august predecessors with whom he is unfavorably compared. The Dow is at about 17,000, and unemployment is at about 6 percent. We're out of two wars and haven't started another. We killed bin Laden (along with many other terrorist a-holes), and haven't had another domestic terrorist attack since 2001. We might get an agreement with Iran to prevent its development of a nuclear weapon. After trying to work with Congress on centrist comprehensive immigration reform, stymied by Republicans, Obama did a temporary version of the Dream Act by executive order. After trying to work with Congress on a centrist cap-and-trade bill, stymied by Republicans, he is using regulatory authority to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions from cars and coal plants. He appointed two outstanding Supreme Court justices and has succeeded in tilting the courts back to the Democratic side, countering conservatives' long-standing (and smart) strategy to focus on the courts. Remember all those things he did that were disasters, that would never work? The stimulus? The vast majority of economists give it credit for saving jobs, reducing unemployment, and preventing the most dire near-term consequences of the housing/financial collapse, with many giving it credit for preventing a depression. The auto industry bail-out? It saved the domestic auto industry from collapse, spurred a rebound in that industry, and is credited with saving at least a million jobs at no net cost to the government. Sanctions against Iran? They brought Iran to the table. The checmical weapons deal with Syria? That, for sure, was never going to work, until it did -- they're all gone. The Obamacare mandate was going to be overturned, and then it wasn't. Healthcare.gov was going to be a disaster, until the website was fixed shortly afterward. (Remember how that was the biggest deal ever, and now it's forgotten because it didn't actually matter all that much?) Nobody was going to sign up for coverage, and certainly not younger, healthier people, until they did. Even the much-maligned Dodd-Frank bill, a major expansion of regulatory oversight of the financial industry, may be getting a bum rap: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/despite-its-problems-dodd-frank-is-better-than-the-alternatives/ Even though a budget deal was not urgent, Obama was willing to negotiate a "grand bargain," but it became apparent in the budget battles that Republicans would resist any such deal, choosing instead to use unprecedented hostage-taking tactics to try to force through their agenda and to shut down the government, prompting Obama's now Republican-maligned efforts to do what we can on his own. The Obama years have been free of personal scandals as well as any serious charge of misconduct, and marked by a recovering, now nearly-recovered economy, serious left-of-center policy accomplishments, and an avoidance of foreign entanglements or other disasters, all after having been handed a giant steaming pile of poo by his predecessor. And yet, what we get is grumbling from the left -- "But I wanted a unicorn!" as one guy I read put it -- and blind, hysterical rage from the right. Perspective, people.

"We needed someone like LBJ who knew how to shepherd things through Congress."

It amazes me how the GOP has gotten otherwise reasonable people to buy into their strategy of opposing everything, and then blaming Obama for not finding the "magic words" to get them to agree. Hint: There are no magic words that would make the "shepherding" possible.

"I still cannot believe that you list me with those who call him a tyrant."

I'm quite specifically NOT saying that (again). I'm saying that you fall on the other side of the equation, which is blaming him for "failures" where success would have required a tyrant. That's equally unfair.

@ Garry,

"Obama never even tried to get single payer passed."

Quite true, and you're right that he negotiated with himself in never even including single-payer in the debate, and then taking the public option off the table because there are a lot of insurance companies in Joe Lieberman's state. Both can reasonably be seen as his failures. But that's a very different thing than saying he "failed to push it through Congress." That's like calling a coach a "failure" for not securing a win by convincing the other team to forfeit.

I think you touched on exactly what Obama's greatest flaw (politically) is... His "pre-compromise" on single-payer allowed the Right to move the goalposts and 50 yard line... By not introducing a single-payer system (which would not have passed even with a slim Dem majority, by the way, b/c Red state Dems wouldn't support it in fear of losing their seats) and introducing ACA instead, the GOP was able to frame that bill as the Dem goal line, despite the fact that Obama had already gone to the middle of the field by introducing ACA instead...

I agree, he clearly doesn't understand bargaining or negotiating... You need to start high and slowly approach the middle to find a compromise... By starting in the middle you will still need to go lower so that the opposition feels it is a compromise instead of your starting point... They need to feel they are getting something in the compromise too...

Robert Pruter wrote: "One thing that the right have been consistently wrong about on their postings is that they refuse to admit that the Republican Party in dealing with Obama has been the party of nullification."

I do not refuse to admit that. For the most part, it has been true. However, it's most often, although not always, been because conservatives and liberals have polar opposite solutions to a particular problem such that there is no common ground to be had. Therefore, preventing your opponent from making things worse (in one's opinion) is better than inaction.

Icarus commented: "still it does seem like the Republicans spent a disproportionate amount of effort attempting (and sometimes succeeding) in making him look bad and prevent anything in the interest of the common good from getting done."

Ok, define "common good." After you have done that, show me an area where the two sides can combine their ideas in some sort of compromise for the common good. It's harder than you think.

@Wendy C,

"What will they do when Obama leaves office and the hate that fuels their party is left without a target?" You may want to re-think that as, according to your side, Hillary is already the target.

And if someone like Kelly Ayotte were to become president, would you attribute the lack of support from and attacks by the black community to be racist and sexist? That's why this argument is so silly. For every white voter who blindly opposes Obama partly or mostly because he's half-black, I'm sure we could find a black voter who blindly voted for Obama for the same reason. That's just the way a lot of people of all races are going to behave and it will always be the case. The argument isn't worthwhile because there is no potential for resolution.

This compromising with himself stuff on health care is facile. He *campaigned* on the type of reform that passed; he campaigned on a moderate position rather than as a left-wing firebrand. We weren't hearing then from disappointed lefties that he wasn't going far enough. Rather, I think they recognized what he recognized, a major lesson from the 90s, which is that a reform that doesn't bring the major stakeholders along, instead upending all current arrangements, is a non-starter. I strongly believe that the reform that passed is the best that could have passed, and that fantasies of single-payer are just that. That seemed clearer to most beforehand.

If Obama has the guts to push Reid and the Senate Dems to whack the filibuster, then the Dems do have the votes to get single payer through Congress during those first two years. Eventually, it does get whacked but too late to do much good. Obama had to know as well as everyone else that the GOP could do filibusters. Tell us why he didn't deal with that when it would have made a difference? After McConnell early on said that the GOP's only priority was to make Obama a one term President, I got the message that they would not work with him in any constructive way. Evidently, the message never reached the White House. Your rejoinders just don't make sense because I've never said that he had to compromise or try to get the GOP to sit down and sing "kumbayah" with him.

If you think that the mess Obamacare has become is the best that could have been done, then you're a case of settling for low expectations. What's the "real" rate of unemployment? The current one doesn't include all those who have just given up on ever finding a decent job. So what if the Dow is at 17,000? Ask yourself if most Americans are better off than they were four years ago. The stock market is almost irrelevant to the lives of most Americans. It's a good thing that Bin Laden is dead but that's not something you can specifically thank Obama for as the war on terror was initiated a long time before he came to the White House. You don't call the refusal of Holder to go after the crooks that caused the crash scandalous? I could go on but Obama failed the basic test of leadership. Things aren't as bad as they could have been if the GOP had won the White House but that's not much of a recommendation.

So, Graf, what was the "real" rate of unemployment during the GW Bush years? What was it during the Clinton years? What was it during the HW Bush years? What was it during the Reagan years?

After all if that has become your metric for unemployment then you best provide us with that data instead trying to use it as a "gotcha." You don't get to compare official numbers from other administrations and then asks for a different set of numbers for Obama.

It's a BS argument at best and an intellectually dishonest moving of the goal posts.

"Ok, define "common good." After you have done that, show me an area where the two sides can combine their ideas in some sort of compromise for the common good. It's harder than you think."

@Greg J I think you know what I mean by common good and I'm not gonna fall for the school teacher trick of defining it so that you can then shoot holes in it.

as for an area where the two sides could work together: the tax code. Every year we have tax laws set to expire and they get temporary band-aid extensions instead of a permanent fix even though both sides claim they want to fix them.

You people on the right are really stretching.......trying to find something that represents incompetence.

Nothing I have seen above represents incompetence. Practically all are examples of policy differences. For example, those who cite:

"the failure to even prosecute the crooks who brought down the economy "

Not all or even muich of the actions were "criminal," they were doing what was legally permitted, which is why there was some reform (the most that they could get through Congress) afterwards. You must remember, you conservatives would have opposed a lot of the prosecution of those "crooks." Don't you recall the hailstorm of comments from the right that it was the poor and middle class people taking out mortgages they couldn't afford that brought down the economy. Now you are blaming Obama for incompetence for not presecuting those :"crooks" when in fact you and Republicans would have opposed it. And would have called Obama incompetent had he prosecuted them.

No, I think a whole of people on this board suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

My response was to JakeH who at least doesn't go around insulting others. My point was that the unemployment rate of 6% is misleading. I never said anything about Bush and those who know me know that I was no fan of his either. For the benefit of others who want to understand what's meant by the "real unemployment rate" and what it has been in years past, you can go online to:

One point to take into consideration is the nature of the jobs themselves that have replaced those lost during the market crash. And, even if you have a job that does not mean that your paycheck and benefits have kept up with the bills. I put a lot of blame on the GOP as well as Obama for the games being played instead of working together to address economic issues including putting behind bars the crooks that broke the law.

Although there's been a lack of personal scandals, there have been many general Administration scandals. I am missing more than one,and obviously Obama is not directly involved with all of them. How does this compare to oher administrations?

WILL YOU QUIT PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH? I have always been consistent on the issue of putting the crooks in jail who broke the law and caused the crash of the economy. People like Elizabeth Warren who is an out and out liberal have also been questioning why we haven't been prosecuting the crooks on Wall Street instead of settling for fines. Is she a conservative as well? On the National Review Online boards, I am considered a RINO at best and more often a dreaded liberal. I really think you need to be more careful in the way you label others.

"If Obama has the guts to push Reid and the Senate Dems to whack the filibuster, then the Dems do have the votes to get single payer through Congress during those first two years. Eventually, it does get whacked but too late to do much good."

Agreed that the filibuster should be "whacked." But what you said above isn't true, again. Yes, they eventually did away with the filibuster *for nominations only.* They didn't eliminate the filibuster entirely for the exact same reasons the Republicans don't when they are in charge. If it's Obama's "failure" to nuke the filibuster in order to pass a particular bill, then every president ever has been a failure.

"Obama had to know as well as everyone else that the GOP could do filibusters. Tell us why he didn't deal with that when it would have made a difference?"

Because he's like every president ever. I agree that it's not something to be particularly proud of, but it's beyond ridiculous to single him out and hold him to that standard.

"After McConnell early on said that the GOP's only priority was to make Obama a one term President, I got the message that they would not work with him in any constructive way. Evidently, the message never reached the White House. Your rejoinders just don't make sense because I've never said that he had to compromise or try to get the GOP to sit down and sing "kumbayah" with him."

OK, then what *are* you saying? You call him a "failure" for not being able to pass policies when, as you admit, the Republicans announced loud and clear that they would not be working with him in any constructive way. So, it logically follows that for him to "succeed" in your eyes, he would either a) have to enact his policies autocratically or b) magically turn the GOP into constructive partners. And yet if he did (a), he'd actually be the tyrant many on the right portray him as, and you just denied that you expect him to do (b). So please clarify: How could Obama possibly win with you?

I should clarify, before someone on the right brings out the "Obama IS enacting his agenda autocratically, because Executive Actions!" thing, that when I say "autocratically" I mean "suspending the democratic process and implementing laws by fiat," like the real autocrats sometimes do in the third world.

Obama should have shown some guts and gotten Reid and the Senate Dems to put the filibuster into storage. He had plenty of warning that the GOP wasn't going to do him any favors and would do anything including filibusters to keep him from succeeding. Instead, we got years of gridlock. Both Obama and Reid failed big time and the mistake got compounded big time by not treating the elections of 2010 with the same seriousness as 2008 and 2012. If your political opponents tell you that they are going to do everything in their power to stymie you and you don't fight back, then shame on you.

OK, so you expect him to have more guts than any other president ever. I assume you similarly consider every other president in our history a failure too, then? Maybe not, but then you have to admit that Obama has faced a far more intractable, unreasonable opposition than any other president (including rampant filibuster abuse), which is something most on the right refuse to acknowledge.

By the way, I do have to note that you're arguing for a *very* different proposition now (Obama should have nuked the filibuster in order to enact his agenda) than before (Obama should have somehow "shepherded" his agenda through Congress).

I assure you that I'm not trying to trick you at all. I was looking for a basic definition in order to demonstrate how there are so many diametrically opposed solutions to broad policy objectives that both sides claim to want to achieve, and the limits of what compromise can achieve.

However, there is also a dispute about what constitutes the common good in some instances - e.g., free trade, gentrification, affirmative action, abortion, capital punishment, involvement in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine.

As for the tax code, what "permanent fix" are you proposing? What types of temporary extensions do you consider problematic? The devil is in the details because most people claim to want fewer deductions until it's one that they rely on. One person's sacred deduction is another person's loophole. And none of this gets us anywhere good unless we lower the corporate rate.

I support simple, one-page corporate and individual tax returns with a lower, flatter rate and few deductions. It would put me out of business because tax planning wouldn't be worthwhile, but I'd shake it off and open a sports bar in Barbados (try me, please). Most Republicans could not survive a re-election campaign if there was a proposal like that on the table and they turned it down (this is especially true of the newer, more conservative members but the establishment-types would be under pressure too). I can't say the same for Democrats.

FDR, Reagan, Truman and LBJ would have had the guts in my opinion to go after the filibuster if it had been misused as often as it has been during Obama's term in office. However, it's all been pointless now to argue about Obama's presidency since they're already looking at who will replace him in the White House. Unless there's a big surprise in the midterm elections, there will continue to be gridlock. I'm just concerned that we'll get Hilary in the White House and we'll be going through another set of years where little enough gets done.

"I'm just concerned that we'll get Hilary in the White House and we'll be going through another set of years where little enough gets done."

Fair enough. And you may be right about some or all of the presidents you listed - who knows, it's speculation. I just genuinely don't understand how your reaction to the facts at hand to blame Obama for not invoking the "nuclear option" in response to the GOP's bad behavior rather than blaming the GOP's bad behavior itself.

I was at least in my late 20s when the screamo thing first started. Far too old to even enter a screamo phase, let alone still be in it. I know you see some truly developmentally arrested people in Logan Square, but come on, give me some credit.

Fine, application accepted as long as you limit yourself to one Kesha cover per set. I'd hire Johnny from V_'s as the manager but he won't serve Englishmen, which is amusing enough here but won't cut it down there. I'll set us up a Kickstarter as soon as you convince enough of your ilk to go along with a tax reform plan that puts me out of the game. I'll deliver the tea party.

Regarding Obamacare - First, Obama let Reid and Pelosi write the bill, he delegated a lot of the effort. Second, for those that say he should have passed single payer, he had to "bribe" a few Democrats out of the 60 Senators in order to get this. Third, he seems very proud of this legislation, so let him succeed or fail because of it. Finally, if ObamaCare was a show of his willingness to compromise, please look at the vote count of the GOP. He could have compromised by throwing in some tort reform, but chose not to.

Garry is right about impeachment - he wants to play the victim card and also fundraise off of it.

Lexi - You are missing the main reason why the Left detested Bush so much - they still think Gore won the election.

Graf - " the failure to even prosecute the crooks who brought down the economy" - I'm waiting for this also - all the clowns at Fannie and Freddie s/b at the top of the list.

Jake,

"The Dow is at about 17,000, and unemployment is at about 6 percent." - Thank you to the Fed for this and those that have given-up looking for work for the 6% unemployment.

"We're out of two wars and haven't started another." - He followed the Bush plan on Iraq and we are still in Afghanistan.

"haven't had another domestic terrorist attack since 2001." - So that Fort Hood shooting was just workplace violence in your opinion?

"We might get an agreement with Iran to prevent its development of a nuclear weapon" - Do you trust agreements made with liars?

The Stimulus? - It didn't even meet up to his chief economic advisors expectations and that's comparing it with the "do-nothing" option.

Stimulus getting credit for preventing a depression? The recession was over 4 months after the Stimulus was passed. The Stimulus didn't end the recession and definitely had no impact on keeping the country out of a depression.

Auto-industry bailout - simple bankruptcy court would have handled this

David Graf: Please stop shouting at me. I thought that it was a fair assumption to assume that you would have opposed the prosecution of the "crooks." I stand corrected. You will agree with me that most Republicans would have opposed prosecution of the so-called "crooks." I never implied that support of the prosecution was Republican thing. So I don't understand your Elizabeth Warren comments..

[[Maybe not, but then you have to admit that Obama has faced a far more intractable, unreasonable opposition than any other president (including rampant filibuster abuse), which is something most on the right refuse to acknowledge.]]

I would never admit that. Every single president has faced opposition. Do you know what Obama said on Jan. 23, when Republicans wanted input on the stimulus? "I won." (I looked it up this afternoon.) Obama has gone out of his way to paint those who oppose him as not just having a different opinion, but of somehow being evil. What did he say today? Something about "hatin' -- and yes, he dropped the "g." So GOP'ers don't have principled opposition to Obama's ideas, in his mind -- they "hate" him. He always portrays his own ideas as perfectly reasonable.

But he never listens to another point of view. So -- did you ever stop to think that's why the opposition is fairly uniform?

I have the same question about Hilary. I don't see that she has the chops to be President. Nor do I think she has the same political skills as her spouse. I think it would be a big help to a candidate if he/she had experience as governor. Of course, there are lots of duds who have been governors too.

Obama will be remembered as a good president. He has governed as a Moderate Republican. Its only the frothing at the mouth, Wing Nuts that are still angry that an articulate, educated, intelligent African American could be elected President and not be shoe shine "boy". Get over it. Dont like it here, leave. This is America...the Land of the Free.

As Beth notes, yesterday Obama was in that cocky, g-droppin' mode where he mocks and taunts the opposition and riles up the crowd. And then we're supposed feel bad for him and treat him like some fragile egg?

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.